Foxconn factories (Apple, Dell, HP) face questions after 10th suicide

I skimmed through this story in the wall street journal and it something like the suicide rate at the factory was in line with the rest of the country I believe.

i maybe wrong and I'm not defending the factory

 

I find suicide in general very interesting.

It is one of the most cowardly things one can do...but to choose when and how you want to die, even if fleeing life...

It's the rare event in which one exerts control over something that binds us all...yet 99.99 percent have that choice made for them.

 

There is a very good point in this article. The people are often so poor and desperate that the payouts to families by the corporation often can take care of them forever.

 

Not to derail but I read/hear this over and over and it never makes any sense. What is "cowardly" about it? I'm certainly not advocating suicide (except in the case of a few people on this BBS) but I just don't get this idea that to live a miserable, ****ty life is admirable but to pull the plug on it when you choose is somehow cowardly.

I get the whole thing about how it hurts others and things like that but unless you have children I would say it's nobody's damn business when you check out or how if you hate your life that much.

 

I think this is the ugly but necessary side of capitalism. I don't think that the work is not worth it for many of the workers - they always have the alternative of being unemployed, which they don't choose (and which they would have if the factories were banned).

I certainly think the working conditions suck, but I think it's necessary part of industrialization. I can't think of a single country that went from 3rd world to 1st world without going through that ugly process. In our history, we've had slavery, terrible factory conditions, child labor, etc. Once the economy grows enough that you have solid employment and healthy industry, conditions can improve through competition - employers have to compete for labor. But first, you have to go through that step of filling employment so the factories are forced to compete.

So in summary, I think it sucks - but the alternative is worse.

 

I posted a similar article about apple's factories (foxconn). It is kind of sad to think your two options are: unemployed or working in hell.

People need to start boycotting companies that have such business practices. If your product costs 20 dollars more so that people can be treated like humans then it is worth it.

 

How does this help things? Let's say Product X costs $20 more. Some people simply won't buy them, meaning those jobs are lost entirely. Others will, but that's $20 less they have to spend on something else, so someone else loses their job.

Benevolent fair trade (what you are essentially advocating) works on a small scale - small businesses, etc. But it's really not scalable - that has to be market driven. On a large scale, people simply aren't going to pay more for the same product. A poor person can't afford to spend $3 extra on a t-shirt so that someone else can get a higher wage - the market just won't sustain it.

The better strategy *should* be using the higher labor cost to produce a better product. In theory, if you have two factories producing widgets, and one is willing to pay a higher wage, they should be able to attract the best quality workers. As a result, they should be able to produce a higher quality product which they can then rightfully charge more for. This benefits everyone - higher quality products, higher wages for workers, and no loss of profits for the businesses.

 

Public pressure forced the NIKE's and their ilk to introduce working standards in their sweatshops. If you can introduce bad PR to the equation, even a purely economic capitalistic analysis of cheaper labor takes on a slightly different tack. That's good. Just letting it be...because business will sort it out is callous and wrong.

The particular issue of suicides being appealing because of the payout is a tougher one to address. To take away, or amend a program that takes care of an employee's family because that program may lead the person to harm themselves potentially ends up hurting the families more. I don't know.

But if working conditions are the problem, it is absolutely OK (and warranted) for the consumer (US) to demand they meet a standard we are comfortable with.

 

I wonder if a worker would be in position to program his/her suicide note in video form, into a few iPhones he/she is making, and have video begin to autoplay every night at 3 a.m., say, 2 months after the phone is activated.


Well, sounds like the premises for an episode of some horror show.

 

Certainly true - I just don't think that can really be accomplished on a big scale. There are too many companies and too many factories, and it's hard to give them all bad PR.

Also definitely true - I'm just saying that this can't be scaled. Only a limited subset of consumers can afford to do this, and of those, only a small few will. So while I think it's good and it works on a small scale (essentially, the fair trade model), I don't think it leads to permanent, sustainable change. I think that only can happen as an economy develops to that next stage.

 

Sounds like factory life in the US before unions which a lot of Americans have been taught to hate by the business press.

 

Aren't Unions banned in China?

 

In the same year that China has had a rash of copycat knife attacks on schools, I can't help but wonder if there is something similar going on here. Even though the numbers pan out with the rest of the population, this plant is not really representative of the population of China because it is made up of completely similar people: migrant workers living in the same space. The national suicide average is comprised of Chinese citizens from multiple walks of life all over the country.

Hopefully this will lead to some kind of changes over there. I wish we could look at the numbers and see just who would get hurt if Apple diverted some money to Foxconn as long as it goes to the workers so that they don't have to work 60 hour weeks while not talking to coworkers on an assembly line.

 

what's counterintuitive, Major, is that it works best on a large scale! You can target the Apples, Dells, Nokias and HPs, and they are not only more sensitive to bad PR, they are able to enact change at their supplier because of their size. Note that they all took the complaints seriously, despite the suicide rates being apparently, on par with that of the country at large.

You're right that there's a limited subset that will seek out and pay a premium for fair trade -- but there's a much larger group who reacts negatively when the abuses are front and center...There may not much punch in Apple coming out and saying "we practice fair trade', but there's huge downside to them if the sentiment that they don't becomes prominent. And brands them. Think NIKE.

The trick is balancing improvements to working conditions without squashing development in nations that need it...

 

When I worked in the electronics industry, Foxconn's work culture had a very negative reputation. If what I heard was true, then this really doesn't surprise me.

 

All those died were the only kid in their family thanks to China's one Child policy. How commiting suicide would help their family with only 2 devastated parents surviving? Also you can easily guess where this "High payout" theory came from. The Foxconn management.

 

I used to work at Foxconn in Houston and I can attest to the work culture as being horrible.

 

Hmm. My friend works at that factory. He got moved over from the branch here in Houston....